February 16, 2010
-
Political Ethics
Socrates_Cafe Has asked about ethics in politics.
I think some ethical behavior would be a good idea - especially if it includes acting as you were elected to behave - that is in the best interests of and in accordance with the wishes of those you represent. I cannot believe that our congressmen were elected to spend their time in obstinate one-up-man-ship and collecting donations for their re-election campaigns. Soliciting campaign donations from special interest groups that not only don't represent the desires of the majority of the citizens you represent, but actively work against those desires is not only unethical, it's evil.
Even if the elected officials don't behave in such a manner (There are a few!) but condone or accept such behavior on the part of their party peers, they are not acting ethically and contribute to the voter's distrust and disgust toward all elected officials.
Political parties are probably a necessary evil -they unite those with the same general political outlook and enable them to get their ideas turned into legislation and active government - but they also depend on compromise. Sometimes ethical compromise.
Should "Bi-partisanship" mean compromise of your ethical beliefs in order to get needed legislation passed? Probably not - but what is an ethical belief when it comes to running a developed country and when should such beliefs be modified for the "Greater Good"
That was a dilemma faced at the beginning of the US's history by the third president -Thomas Jefferson. He considered himself very ethical (and is so regarded by history - well mostly anyway). Jefferson had to decide whether or not to accept Napoleon's offer of the sale of the French Louisiana Territory (Basically Alabama, Lousiana, and everything West of the Mississippi and north of the Missouri Rivers) Jefferson thought he did not have the constitutional power to accept - but he did. Was he right (and ethical) in so doing?
On the whole, how ethical has the US government acted lately?
Comments (1)
Sorry if i go out of theme a little.
I think there are some intrinsecal problems on the relationship between Ethics and Politics.
First of all, all of us Westernians (me included) believe that democracy is ethical. That because we all believe that the value of any person (citizen) is even. With democracy any vote is even, so that everybody has the same political power as the others.
I don't think this is actually what it happens in most of western democracies (as a first example there is the actual situation of Italy).
Because actually who is elected has political power, and not the single citizen. And who is elected is supported by the majority. And the will of the majority is not necessarily the will of everybody. And, worse, it doesnt usually tend to better everybody's condition, even in the perfect case that the elected politician is honest. Because the will of majority is not necessarily the best for the minority. Take, as example, nazism. Hitler was democratically elected, although he did never hide his hate against some minorities. He could also do the best for all the people that voted for him, which is the worst for those minorities.
The conclusion, in my opinion, is that democracy is ethical only when the voters vote for the common good, and not for their personal interests, being that in my opinion the value of ethics is absolute for anybody.
In that case the government would act in favor of what the majority believe is the best for everybody. Which is not necessarily what the minorities believe, but atleast it is ethical upon some kind of ethics.
Being that ethics is not absolute, or atleast not absolutely definited, there must be rules that limitates the power of the government, written in order to respect minorities. I don't agree with the fact that some government overcomes those limits in order to obtain a better good, because in that case we should need some superior absolute authority to judge what is a better good.